Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Sandeep Agrawal, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate for petitioners and Sri Amit Krishna, Advocate for respondent No. 1/1.

2. The respondent-landlord instituted Small Cause Suit No. 31 of 1993 seeking eviction of petitioners-tenants from premises in dispute, which is a shop situate at Kharod Dwar Kosikalan, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura and the petitioners are tenants therein. It is said that petitioners have sub-let the suit property to another person who is not a family member and also in arrears of rent, therefore, are liable for eviction.

3. The Trial Court decreed suit on the ground of default in payment of rent but on the question of sub-letting though it found that an exclusive possession has been given by petitioners to a stranger, i.e., a person not family member of petitioners, but since the landlord has failed to prove that rent is being paid by occupant to petitioners, therefore, sub-letting is not proved.

4. However, since the suit was decreed, it is the petitioners-tenants, who preferred SCC Revision No. 25 of 2002. The Revisional Court has also confirmed the judgment of Trial Court but on a different ground. It has held that for the purpose of sub-letting once exclusive possession handed over to a person is proved, that is sufficient to deem a sub-letting in view of Section 12 read with Section 25(2) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1972”) and actual payment of rent by occupant to main tenant is not required to be proved at all. Now, since sub-letting was proved in the case in hand, Revisional Court found no reason to interfere with the judgment of Trial Court though on a different ground. On the question of payment of rent, Revisional Court held that there is no default on the part of petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in a case where suit is filed on the ground of sub-letting, payment of rent by the occupant to original tenant has to be proved and placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ajit Singh v. Naresh Chand Gupta and others, 1981 ARC 332.

6. The only question up for consideration is whether the landlord satisfy the requirement of pleading and proof for the purpose of attracting Section 20(2)(e) so as to attract liability for ejectment from building in dispute.

7. Section 20(2)(e) reads as under:

“20. Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds— . . . . . . .

(2) A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building after the determination of his tenancy may be instituted on one or more of the following grounds, namely:

. . . . . . . .

(e) that the tenant has sub-let, in contravention of the provisions of Section 25, or as the case may be, of the old Act the whole or any part of the building;” (emphasis added)

8. The above provision takes this Court to Section 25 of Act, 1972 and it would be appropriate to notice Section 25 also, which reads as under:

“25. Prohibition of sub-letting.—(1) No tenant shall sub-let the whole of the building under his tenancy.

(2) The tenant may, with the permission in writing of the landlord and of the District Magistrate, sub-let a part of the building.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section—

(i) where the tenant ceases, within the meaning of clause (b) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 12, to occupy the building or any part thereof, he shall be deemed to have sub-let that building or part;

(ii) lodging a person in a hotel or a lodging house shall not amount to sub-letting.” (emphasis added)

9. Explanation to Section 25 require this Court to go to Section 12(1)(b) and (2), which, in turn, read as under:

“12. Deemed vacancy of building in certain cases—(1) A landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if,—

. . . . . . .

(b) he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who i